The
inverse-square law derived perceived size equation, especially the simplified
perceived height equation, has been proven to be able to accurately calculate
size perception. The experiments have substantiated that, unlike the
traditional accounts of optical geometry and SDIH, the terms in the new
equation have the precisely measured values. The term, measure-point, has set
the new equation apart from any other mathematical expressions of size
perception. Actually, the term Mp
plays an essential role in our size perception. The measure-point can help
explain some perplexing phenomena of size perception, e.g., the phenomenon that
the objects in a second mirror appear smaller when the mirror is moved closer
to the eye. The measure-point is potentially a key factor for understanding the
size illusions such as the Ames room illusion and moon illusion, the Emmert’s
law, and size/shape constancy.
The
main finding of the investigations is that mirror images do not have the
extra-mental existence because the calculations of the perceived size of the
mirror images and follow-up experiments have revealed that the image in the
first mirror does not show up in the second mirror. The further analysis and
reasoning tell us that ordinary objects, like mirror images, might be the
projected images as well. If this claim were true, we could live in a projected
world, rather than in an objective world as we have known and believed.
The
mind is believed to be different from the brain in essence. The mind is
non-physical so that it can mentally project images instantaneously whereas it
is impossible for the physical brain to project anything faster than the speed of
light. The mental projection, even just of the mirror images, precludes any
possibility of direct perception of any kind because there is no mirror image
reaching the retina. The possibility of representational perception is also
excluded because the brain simply cannot construct the physical replicas of the
external objects which are mind-dependent themselves.
Finally,
the conventional outside-in understanding of vision may have to be replaced by
the inside-out conception, that is, the mind is the source and the projected
image is the end-product of perception.
The findings presented in this paper may have assaulted our common sense and sounded quite counter-intuitive; but the truth is beautiful. To know that we might live in a projected world does not make the world we live in any less wonderful. As a matter of fact, this knowledge may make everyone feel being intimately in touch with everything else in the universe because they are intrinsically related to our mind. We are the world and the world is inside us.
Gregory, R.L. (1998). Eye and brain (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hollins, M. (1976). Does accommodative micropsia exist? American Journal of Physiology, 89, 443-454.
Kaneko, H, & Uchikawa, K. (1997). Perceived angular size and linear size: The role of binocular disparity and visual surround. Perception 26 (1), 17–27.
Kosslyn, S.M. (1975). Information representation in visual images. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 341-370.
Zygmunt, P. (2001). Perception viewed as an inverse problem. Vision Research, 41(24), 3145-3161.
Related Information on the Web: